Why was the accused granted bail in the Pocso case?

The accused was granted bail because the Orissa High Court found a clear violation of the mandatory procedure for communicating the grounds of arrest in writing.

What discrepancies were found in the arrest documentation?

Discrepancies included differences in signatures between the grounds of arrest document and the memo of arrest, and the absence of the arresting officer's signature on the grounds of arrest.

What does Article 22(1) of the Constitution mandate regarding arrests?

Article 22(1) makes it mandatory for an arresting officer to inform the arrestee of the grounds of arrest in writing.

Home / Crime and Justice / High Court Cites Arrest Error, Releases Pocso Accused

High Court Cites Arrest Error, Releases Pocso Accused

4 Feb

•

Summary

Court granted bail due to procedural arrest violation.
Discrepancies found in arrest and grounds of arrest signatures.
Mandatory written communication of arrest grounds was absent.

High Court Cites Arrest Error, Releases Pocso Accused

The Orissa High Court has ordered the release of an accused in a Pocso case on bail due to a critical procedural error during arrest. The ruling, issued on February 2, pertained to a case before the special Pocso court in Bhawanipatna.

Justice Gourishankar Satapathy observed significant discrepancies in the arrest documentation. Notably, the signature on the certified copy of the grounds of arrest differed from the one on the memo of arrest. Furthermore, the arresting officer's signature was missing from the grounds of arrest.

These inconsistencies led the court to conclude that the constitutional requirement under Article 22(1) – mandating that an arrestee be informed of the grounds of arrest in writing – was not met. Justice Satapathy stated that the court had no alternative but to grant bail, emphasizing that public officials must follow prescribed procedures strictly.